Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 89456 (KAR)

SMT. RANGANAYAKI. P v. SRI. H.R. PUTTAREVANNA

CRL.RP/487/2017 · 2025-09-15

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36629 CRL.RP No. 487 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 487 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. RANGANAYAKI. P W/O PADMANABHA KAMAT, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, I DIVISION CLERK, KARNATAKA STATE KHADI GRAMODYOGA AND VILLAGE, INDUSTRIES BOARD, KHADI BHAVAN, NO.10 JESMA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 052 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. H.R. PUTTAREVANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE REVANNA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 1(A). SMT. MOHANMBA W/O LATE PUTTAREVANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT HENNUR VILLAGE KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36629 CRL.RP No. 487 of 2017 1(B). MANUNATH H.PS/O H.R. PUTTAREVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO. 104/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 18 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.B. NIJALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR LR'S OF RESPONDENT) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.03.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.09/2012 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.01.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUNIGAL IN C.C.NO.330/2009 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding in respect of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'). 2. The cheque issued by the petitioner/accused for Rs.2 lakhs is dishonoured. The complainant prosecuted the case on the premise that he had lent hand loan to the accused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36629 CRL.RP No. 487 of 2017 and the amount was not repaid and the cheque issued towards discharge of debt was dishonoured. 3. The accused had disputed the claim. The accused had totally denied the averments in the notice issued u/s.138 of NI Act replying to the said notice. However, before the trial court the accused in the defence contended that he had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant's wife and the cheque was issued as a security for the said loan advanced by the complainant's wife, and despite repayment of the said loan amount the cheque was not handed over and the same is misused by the complainant in collusion with his wife. 4. The accused had also led evidence and accused has also disputed the liability to repay the said amount. 5. The accused to substantiate his contention has produced the diary maintained by him which contains a statement that the Rs.20,000/- borrowed by the accused from complainant's wife is repaid. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the transaction as alleged by the complainant is established. Trial Court holds that the presumption u/s.139 of NI Act is not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36629 CRL.RP No. 487 of 2017 rebutted and has committed the petitioner for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- and directed payment of Rs.2 lakh as compensation to the complainant. 6. Appellate court also concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. It is urged that the capacity of the complainant to pay Rs.2 lakh is not established though such capacity is seriously disputed by the petitioner/accused. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent would submit that the transaction between the complainant and the respondent is duly established. The accused has not taken the defence in his reply notice that he had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant's wife and had issued cheque as a security for the said loan. It is his submission that the contention that he had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant's wife and had issued a cheque as security for the said loan is an after thought and the said aspect is not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36629 CRL.RP No. 487 of 2017 established. It is also submitted that no action is taken against the complainant's wife if at all she has misused the cheque. 9. It is also urged that the accused has not provided proper explanation as to why the cheque said to have been issued to the complainant's wife as a security for the loan is not reclaimed after allegedly repaid Rs.20,000/- to complainant's wife. 10. It is also alleged that the complainant accused would have obtained a receipt for having repaid loan of Rs.20,000/- in the absence of such evidence by the accused the trial court is justified in holding that the presumption u/s.138 of NI Act is not rebutted. 11. This court has considered contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. It is noticed that there are two cheques issued by the accused marked as Ex.P1 & P2 for Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. It is not in dispute that above mentioned two cheques marked Ex.P1 & P2 are pertaining to the accused. The signatures on the cheques are not in dispute as rightly contended by the counsel for the complainant/respondent. The defence that the cheques were - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36629 CRL.RP No. 487 of 2017 issued to the complainant's wife as a security for the hand loan is not established. There is no acceptable material on record to hold that the accused has borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant's wife and had repaid the said amount and the cheques are handed over to the complainant's wife as a security for hand loan of Rs.20,000/-. 12. This being the position, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court, in exercise of jurisdiction u/s.397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. The trial court has analysed the evidence in proper perspective and has rightly come to the conclusion that the transaction between the complainant and the accused to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs covered under two cheques is established. The appellate Court has rightly concurred with the finding of the Trial Court by assigning valid reasons. 14. It is stated that 50% of the fine amount is already deposited before the trial court. The petitioner shall deposit remaining 50% within four weeks from today, failing which the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36629 CRL.RP No. 487 of 2017 petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months as ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. 15. The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the complainant/respondent after due identification. 16. Accordingly petition is dismissed. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SNB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK ...